I'm not aware of Cruz saying that his Christianity would overrule the Constitution in any way or that he would force his religious views on anyone politically. As a matter fact, he's said exactly the opposite. If you can provide some examples of that I would like to see it.

And, umm yes. Electability, 3rd party or otherwise, is what I meant by viable.

Like bigjim, I'd like to see documented examples of Ted Cruz saying that his faith supercedes the Constitution. I doubt you'll find any.

Frankly, I have always imagine Cruz as being personally very conservative as it relates to social issues and very liberal (Constitutionally minded) as it relates to enforcing governmental policy onto others.

An example of this is how Ted Cruz speaks about the issue of gay marriage. It's obvious from his tone that he is personally opposed to the idea, but every word he has ever said about it is rooted in the 10th Amendment. When the Supreme Court decided to legalize gay marriage across the board, Cruz never said that gay marriage was wrong in his opposition to that SCOTUS decision. What he said is that 5 unelected/unaccountable judges just acted against the individual states' rights to decide on the issue. The 10th Amendment basically says that those rights/powers/etc. not specifically spelled out in the Constitution for the federal government are reserved specifically for the states and the citizens. Gay marriage as an issue has failed every single time at the ballot box regardless of whether you're talking liberal California or socially conservative Utah. Not once, ever in any state has legalizing gay marriage won the majority of the popular vote, yet the Supreme Court acted directly against the wishes of the people to govern themselves, If you ever listen to Ted speak on this particular issue and listen to the exact words that he uses, his opposition to the SCOTUS decision is always based on the 10th Amendment and never his own moral compass.

Personally, I could care less about that particular issue, as I believe government should have no business is sanctioning the relationships between consenting adults, straight, gay or whatever. I simply use this example to illustrate how Ted Cruz thinks as it relates to governance. He may have a personal opinion on a subject, but he would govern with the Constitution in the forefront of his mind, not his Bible.

Like Ted, I will use my Bible for guidance in my own life, and I would use the Constitution for guidance in governmental policy.

Anyway, if you have examples showing the opposite, I'd like to see them, but for now, I am pretty skeptical when you say, "He is a social conservative on religious grounds. He believes in using the power of the government to force those views on others."

Eh...he's a politician. Who cares what he said? (a little sarcasm...)

I also would like to see some sourcing on your claims that "He believes in using the power of the government to force those views on others."
"

He wants to mix up religion and government as I note in the next reply.

He wanted gays out of the military, and is pro life an against same sex marriage, for religious reasons not based on individual rights.

what makes you think that he will NOT attempt to do things like 0 has and be successful?
he will or would be a mistake.

Which potential first lady do you like?

Well done to you.

Hear, hear!

There is Trump, who at least is honest and tells it like it is and isnt a career politician. He would be good for us for the next 4 years. The establishment hates him, and thats a plus for me. I am tired of lying and manipulative career politicians beholden to their contributors.

My apologies if I was mistaken. The way it was presented to me implied that Trump himself was so inclined.

Please let me know if you find out more about the suit, as it likely has implications into the current President...

You probably would be denied standing if you filed suit in a court other than that of your home state in which you were a registered voter. As to whether or not a Court allows standing, generally, the complaint must be filed with the Secretary of State or other elected official who is charged with certifying the eligibility of the candidates.

Electors are bound by the rules of their respective States. Some States still allow Electors to vote however they choose, but most don't. A few require that their Electors vote in proportion to the popular vote obtained in those states, but most require the Electors to vote entirely for the candidate who wins the popular vote. Whether or not this is Constitutional is perhaps a subject for another post. Remember, originally, the President was supposed to be elected by the States and the Electors were agents of the State. The Twelfth Amendment is responsible for making the President a popular vote decision, so you would be debating it as well.

So here's the way I look at the matter: If Cruz isn't eligible, neither is Obama. And that is the reason I don't see too many Court cases getting accepted on the matter: can you imagine what chaos would ensue if President Obama's two terms in office were declared null and void as a result of him being ineligible retroactively?

Jay was not at the Constitutional convention. Franklin had Vattel's book (which is thousands of pages long) as did others. All the framers were familiar with the much more common texts of Blackstone which does cite the much more common definition of "natural born subject" under British law which, of course, allowed for non-UK born subjects of the King to be citizens (think of children born of British officers serving in India). I repeat, nobody at the convention made a single reference to Vattel and his idea. And of the 11 people on the drafting committee at the convention who actually came up with the "natural born citizen" phrase, 8 of them were serving in Congress in 1790 and voted for the Act which expressly allows citizenship of those born outside the US if their mom was a citizen. Why would they do that if they thought Vatel's definition was enshrined in the Constitution they had just voted for???? This is an issue of Constitutional law and interpretation of that document. No Court in the history of this country has ever cited the Vatell definition as controlling. It is fanciful thinking to believe that it will ever be otherwise.

Correct.

At best it is wholly irrelevant to having good ideas for small government,

This is a silly issue.

Just like (Carter,Bill Clinton,Obama) destroyed the country? Predictable as clockwork, every four years we are told "Vote for a Republican (even one you despise) rather than voting your principles, because the Democrat will destroy the country." Not a particularly effective way to promote the cause of liberty, or feel good about your vote. And if the country is that easily destroyed, we're doomed anyway.

Prior to the Arizona decision, Trump had need of only about 55% of the remaining votes while Cruz needed like 80%. Cruz has won several contests since then so although Trump's need is still only about 50%, Cruz' has dropped as a percentage. The current trend is that Cruz is closing the gap with each successive race. Current odds: http://www.2016election.com/2016-repu...

It is going to be much closer than anyone thought after the first month or so, but Cruz' organization is adept at marketing and he hasn't made key missteps like Trump has. The other thing "The Donald" has to face is that unlike Cruz, he already has 100% name recognition and people have already pretty much formed their opinions of him - either positive or negative. That's not necessarily a good thing, however, as Trump has a decidedly negative overall rating which is close to Hillary's overall negative rating. If it comes down to those Hillary v Trump in the Generals, you are going to have a lot of people who just don't vote at all - in general a boon to the Democrat.

There is a BIG difference! Nowhere in the constitution is there a delineated freedom "from" religion. Unfortunately, it's not just progressives and liberals who believe they should be free from religion.